PDA

View Full Version : Live 8! Watch Now



anonytmouse
07-02-2005, 11:15 AM
Watch Now! (http://music.aol.com/live_8_concert/live_now)

I couldn't get the webpage working in IE (due to a script error) but after a lot of trouble it seems to be working in Firefox now.

Anyway, if you're having trouble with the annoying AOL webpage here are some direct links to the 320K WMP streams.

WORLD (best of) (mms://live8us.stream.aol.com/live/aol/boc_webcast1_320)
LONDON (mms://live8us.stream.aol.com/live/aol/boc_webcast2_320)
PHILADELPHIA (mms://live8us.stream.aol.com/live/aol/boc_webcast3_320)

Bon Jovi was just playing in Philadelphia. Awesome!

Crank up the volume!

P.S These are the links to the .asx wrappers if above links didn't work.

WORLD (best of) (http://pdl.stream.aol.com/aol/us/aolmusic/specials/2005/live8/playlists/world_direct_us_320_dl.asx?wmcache=0)
LONDON (http://pdl.stream.aol.com/aol/us/aolmusic/specials/2005/live8/playlists/london_direct_us_320_dl.asx?wmcache=0)
PHILADELPHIA (http://pdl.stream.aol.com/aol/us/aolmusic/specials/2005/live8/playlists/philly_direct_us_320_dl.asx?wmcache=0)

The concerts will be rebroadcast for the next few weeks. The links remain valid. The AOL coverage was excellent.

bithub
07-02-2005, 12:39 PM
Dave Matthews on stage now :)

Felix
07-02-2005, 02:36 PM
I saw Velvet Revolver... is that Slash from GNR playing there?

Edit: Yes it is omg. And the bassist from GNR's there too. That group's an atrocity to GNR.

kermit
07-02-2005, 03:01 PM
I saw Velvet Revolver... is that Slash from GNR playing there?

Edit: Yes it is omg. And the bassist from GNR's there too. That group's an atrocity to GNR.

Uh - think of it as an improved GnR - Axle Rose is an A$$

They've got Matt Sorum too

Perspective
07-02-2005, 03:31 PM
>>They've got Matt Sorum too

not to mention Scott Weiland from STP

anonytmouse
07-02-2005, 03:32 PM
The Who is up next in London. If you support the message of Live8, you can "sign" the Live8 List (http://www.live8list.com/).

anonytmouse
07-02-2005, 04:03 PM
Pink Floyd NOW!

Felix
07-02-2005, 05:07 PM
Uh - think of it as an improved GnR - Axle Rose is an A$$
I don't. I especially dislike the singing, I barely notice a change of tone ...

adrianxw
07-02-2005, 05:25 PM
Floyd.

Govtcheez
07-02-2005, 07:45 PM
DAMMIT! I missed it :(

SMurf
07-03-2005, 06:17 AM
Bill Gates managed to make an appearance at Hyde Park too, which I thought was pretty funny. Didn't hear much in the way of booing... :p

Stoned_Coder
07-03-2005, 07:12 AM
OMG Floyd were awesome, miles better than anyone else in London. So good to see Waters and Gilmour together again on stage. Hope that wasn't a one-off. Waters seemed to have genuinely enjoyed playing with Floyd again.Just wish I had video'ed it. Spent all morning looking for a clip or two and have come up empty.

adrianxw
07-03-2005, 09:16 AM
At the Floyd fan site I use it points to a Bit Torrent here (http://www.torrentspy.com/search.asp?query=floyd). I don't really know this Bit Torrent thing, I've heard some dubious comments about it so am reluctant to get involved.

Fordy
07-03-2005, 11:08 AM
I think the Floyd were excellent, but restricting the set to 4 songs was a bit poor. There was plenty of rubbish that they could have trimmed to allow a bigger set for the decent acts (Paul McCartney, The Who, and of course the Floyd).

Robbis Williams could easilly have been cut.

Felix
07-03-2005, 11:21 AM
I think the Floyd were excellent, but restricting the set to 4 songs was a bit poor. There was plenty of rubbish that they could have trimmed to allow a bigger set for the decent acts (Paul McCartney, The Who, and of course the Floyd).
Did McCartney play any songs that weren't Lennon/McCartney?

Fordy
07-03-2005, 12:49 PM
Did McCartney play any songs that weren't Lennon/McCartney?

I didnt see the earlier set with U2, but I think the final set was pretty much all Beatles stuff

Felix
07-03-2005, 01:10 PM
I didnt see the earlier set with U2, but I think the final set was pretty much all Beatles stuff
Figures how popular McCartney is when he doesn't play his own songs =/

Govtcheez
07-03-2005, 01:30 PM
> Figures how popular McCartney is when he doesn't play his own songs =/

He played solo stuff for the Super Bowl this year, IIRC. I'm pretty sure he played Live and Let Die.

> I don't really know this Bit Torrent thing, I've heard some dubious comments about it so am reluctant to get involved.

There's no reason to get all paranoid about BT. It's chiefly used to pirate games and stuff, but there are plenty of legitimate uses for it, too. I'm downloading one of those torrents right now. If it's decent I'll upload it to yousendit or somethign.

adrianxw
07-03-2005, 02:08 PM
>>> Robbis Williams could easilly have been cut.

Robbie Williams was ideal for a gig like that. He had the crowd eating out of the palm of his hand. He plays the crowd and the cameras very well, and for a gig like that, it was just what was needed.

If you wanted to make cuts, Mariah Carey was a waste of Oxygen as most pundits seem to agree on. UB40 were commented as being a good backing track for a toilet or burger stand visit, Ms Dynamite was hopeless, (my reckoning).

I could go on, but I didn't see all of it, and what I did see was chosen by others.

Floyd, of course, were just incredible.

Fordy
07-03-2005, 02:19 PM
Figures how popular McCartney is when he doesn't play his own songs =/

Well a lot of them are his own songs. They were attributed to Lennon/McCartney, but you can usually tell who wrote what.



Robbie Williams was ideal for a gig like that. He had the crowd eating out of the palm of his hand. He plays the crowd and the cameras very well, and for a gig like that, it was just what was needed.

Maybe, but I cant stand the guy, and I'm proud of myself for sitting through his set (though it was mainly due to pressure from other people watching it with me). He's still a talentless waste of skin, and you cant persuade me otherwise.

Felix
07-03-2005, 02:55 PM
Well a lot of them are his own songs. They were attributed to Lennon/McCartney, but you can usually tell who wrote what.
I know they were attributed to Lennon/McCartney n'all, but they're well-known because the Beatles played 'em, most people don't know *his* songs, or atleast less of them than those of Lennon or Harrison.

And Live and Let Die is well known because of James Bond and because of GNR.

Govtcheez
07-03-2005, 03:22 PM
> most people don't know *his* songs, or atleast less of them than those of Lennon or Harrison.

You're discounting McCartney because he wasn't as big as the Beatles when he went solo? That's retarded.

> And Live and Let Die is well known because of James Bond

Still, I challenge you to name more than one or two other songs from Bond movies.

> because of GNR.

Please :rolleyes:

Fordy
07-03-2005, 04:05 PM
> And Live and Let Die is well known because of James Bond

Still, I challenge you to name more than one or two other songs from Bond movies.

Not hard as many are named after the film: Goldfinger, A View to a Kill, Diamonds are Forever

Govtcheez
07-03-2005, 06:38 PM
I didn't mean "Say their names", I meant name well known ones. I've never heard of any of those outside of the movies. The only one I can think of offhand was whichever one Tina Turner did, and I don't even remember which movie that was.

Felix
07-04-2005, 11:31 AM
You're discounting McCartney because he wasn't as big as the Beatles when he went solo? That's retarded.
That's not what I'm saying. What I think is that I doubt people* would go to a Paul McCartney concert if he didn't play any Beatles' songs, since his own work isn't as well-known (=popular) as the Beatles', or John Lennon's. Or George Harrison' for that matter.


Still, I challenge you to name more than one or two other songs from Bond movies.
Discarding the option that I could've typed it all in on Google by now, and that Fordy already posted three, Diamonds are Forever (yes Fordy named it, so what? I have the video), Die Another Day, The James Bond Theme, Tomorrow Never dies, Licence to Kill.


I didn't mean "Say their names", I meant name well known ones.
You are a bloody retard :D :D :D **







* I can be included aswell as excluded from people, kay?

** I didn't mean "You are a bloody retard" I meant that you are a nice fella.

ober
07-04-2005, 01:23 PM
Did anyone else realize that they didn't actually raise money at any of these events??? The whole point was to raise "awareness about the situation in Africa". Yet all I hear about is people talking about the bands that played. Does anyone else care that they had all these people together and didn't really raise a dime for the cause?

Felix
07-04-2005, 01:44 PM
anyone else care that they had all these people together and didn't really raise a dime for the cause?
The problem isn't really the money, they get enough of that...
It's more like corrupt leaders, civil wars etc. (and AIDS).

anonytmouse
07-04-2005, 07:07 PM
Did anyone else realize that they didn't actually raise money at any of these events??? The whole point was to raise "awareness about the situation in Africa". Yet all I hear about is people talking about the bands that played. Does anyone else care that they had all these people together and didn't really raise a dime for the cause?
Here is a good summary of the current trade situation.


Telegraph.co.uk: We'll be watching you (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2005/07/04/bm8sting.xml&sSheet=/arts/2005/07/04/ixtop.html)

Oxfam recently estimated that if Africa were able to increase its share of world trade by just one per cent, that would generate about 40 billion - about five times the current level of aid.

According to the Africa Commission, rich countries spend around 200 billion a year on agricultural protection and subsidies - 16 times the amount of aid they give to Africa. "We live in a world where every cow in Europe has received almost $2 [1.13] a day in subsidies - double, grotesquely, the average income in Africa. And Japanese cows nearly $4," said the commission.

Experts believe that opening up western markets, particularly in agricultural products such as cotton, would give Africa a desperately needed opportunity to grow economically while reducing prices for western consumers.

...

Excess Italian tomatoes are dumped on international markets, driving African farmers out of business because they cannot compete in their own markets against cheap European imports.

...

In a testament to the enduring power of "King Cotton", US support to the country's 25,000 cotton farmers was $3.9 billion - more than its aid to Africa. It is estimated that this has driven down world cotton prices by 10-20 per cent. This is calculated to have lost African cotton farmers up to $250 million.

Ironically, doing the "right thing" would benefit most Europeans and Americans with lower grocery bills and lower taxes.


Chicago Tribune: End to subsidies is best aid for Africa (http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/world/12052154.htm)

The United States government last year paid 7,500 of the country's biggest cotton growers $3.2 billion in production subsidies - nearly a half-million dollars per farmer on average. The subsidies are necessary, producers argue, because foreign cotton growers, in places like West Africa and Brazil, can grow cotton much more cheaply than those in the United States. Without the help, they argue, they would be out of business.

Europe, similarly, pays about $3.2 billion dollars a year in subsidies to its sugar producers, guaranteeing them prices for their crops that - like cotton in the United States - give them an income three times higher than what they would get selling their products on an open world market.

The subsidies promote overproduction, cost taxpayers billions and artificially push down crop prices worldwide. In Africa, where governments can't afford to give their farmers such assistance, the subsidies create a disaster.

In dry countries like Burkina Faso, Mali and Benin, perched on the southern edge of the Sahara, cotton is about the only viable crop. Growers there can produce it at about a third of what it costs in the United States, according to Oxfam, a British anti-poverty group. In a free-trade environment, the growers would be able to boost their sales, their families' income and the welfare of their extremely poor countries.

But subsidies to U.S., European and even Chinese cotton farmers mean the 10 million people who rely on cotton in West and Central Africa are struggling to survive, hit by unfair competition and artificially low world prices for cotton. They're eager to improve their plight through trade rather than aid, as the wealthy world has long urged. It's just that the rich nations won't let them.

...

One of the ironies of rich-world agricultural subsidies is that they hurt even the rich nations themselves. U.S. taxpayers each year hand over $19 billion in agricultural subsidies primarily to a small pool of already wealthy corporate farmers.

Govtcheez
07-09-2005, 01:53 PM
This is being replayed on MTV right now. PF is on near the end.

Rashakil Fol
07-09-2005, 02:28 PM
At the Floyd fan site I use it points to a Bit Torrent here (http://www.torrentspy.com/search.asp?query=floyd). I don't really know this Bit Torrent thing, I've heard some dubious comments about it so am reluctant to get involved.

Those dubious comments are FUD. BitTorrent is no more dubious than HTTP.

adrianxw
07-09-2005, 04:33 PM
:rolleyes: